Are we nuking someone, or are you comparing a hypothetical nuking to the real slaughter of millions of children?

I think he was using the word colloquially. Thousands of civilians have died as a result of continual drone strikes carried out by both Bush and Obama, and tens of thousands of civilians (at a conservative estimate) were killed in the Iraq war. I think 'slaughter' would be a fair description of those deaths. I think those are the kinds of events he was talking about, and whether actual nuclear weapons were used in any of those attacks is probably not relevant to the point the point he's making.

Well aside from the fact that this is a ridiculous ad hominem, nobody has dropped a nuke in warfare since Nagasaki at the end of WWII. But really, slaughtering them in the womb by wholesale is at least as bad, so really Sanders is that bad. Also, if you don't think abortion targets brown bodies, you are mistaken.

I agree that it was ad hom, but claiming that Sanders is "slaughtering them in the womb wholesale" seems equally ad hom to me too...

Simple fact: Bush, Obama, Clinton, and Bush Sr. have all perpetuated war without end.

Agreed

Quote:

All claimed they wouldn't. But it is a relatively easy way to justify greater power over citizens. I don't think a new suit in the white house will change that, any more than a new suit will stem the tide on abortion. Both take long games which American politics is not set up for.

The fact that Paul, Kasich, and Sanders all want less military involvement (and the former two, perhaps all three, lean on sound principles to motivate this position, not just rhetoric) gives me reason to think that we could see an end to this bloody pattern. It would be very, very difficult, I agree, just as it would be extremely hard to stem the tide of abortion.

Its an ugly fact, but a fact, nonetheless. Also, Taylor brought that language up, not me. I was merely using his own language about his "more christlike" candidate that he chose.

I think Eric actually used the word "slaughter" first. I also think "supports abortion" is a poor choice of words because it makes the specifics of his position very unclear. "Abortion" doesn't slaughter innocents in the womb. Individual people have abortions, which end the lives of individual babies.

From what I understand, Sanders believes that the government should not be able to decide whether women should be allowed to have abortions. For him, women should be able to make the choice for themselves. I think that saying he "supports abortion" is not a particularly accurate way represent that. He supports access to abortion for individuals should they decide to have one, perhaps.

I think Eric actually used the word "slaughter" first. I also think "supports abortion" is a poor choice of words because it makes the specifics of his position very unclear. "Abortion" doesn't slaughter innocents in the womb. Individual people have abortions, which end the lives of individual babies.

From what I understand, Sanders believes that the government should not be able to decide whether women should be allowed to have abortions. For him, women should be able to make the choice for themselves. I think that saying he "supports abortion" is not a particularly accurate way represent that. He supports access to abortion for individuals should they decide to have one, perhaps.

Abortion slaughters innocents in the womb being as abortion is the process of the slaughter. Sanders supports this slaughter. Fact.

This isn't necessarily directed at you, just the idea of big vs small Government.

Politicians talk about making government smaller and more efficient. But it never actually happens. Republicans grow the government just like Democrats do.

You're correct, I guess I'd just rather put my support behind politicians that at least claim to be in favor of smaller government with more accountability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chunkster

How much more in taxes would you be paying according to what has been said by Sanders?

From my understanding, the real point for him is to crack down on corporate fraud, tax loopholes, and the insanely rich who often pay a much lower rate than the not so rich.

(Of course, I may be behind about what information is going on. I'm much more in tune with what is happening in the UK and the recent election of Corbyn for the Labour party leadership, something which has been a great triumph for democracy, imo)

That's always the proposed method of growing the government and founding massive social programs -- however the corporations and insanely rich have enough money and power to avoid this and the tax burden seems to fall on the middle class.

Yeah, I'm not in agreement with Sanders on abortion. But I don't see it as a deal-breaker. That's not to say it isn't important. Because it's true that while the President can do nothing about Roe v. Wade (except very remotely by possibly appointing Supreme Court justices), they do have some influence over the number of abortions that happen in this country—by signing/vetoing federal legislation and/or regulating federal dollars to pressure state legislatures. Of course, in the abstract we cannot know how much political capital a President will spend on these issues on the mere designation of pro-life or pro-choice.

That said, as supreme national executive there are many other policy areas where Presidents have direct influence. Hence that should weigh more in our calculus. After all, while a President may be able to nudge abortion law in one direction or another, he or she can unilaterally send our absurdly powerful military to kill thousands (or more). Et cetera, et cetera.

Yeah, but he's not a socialist. I know he's applied that word to himself but he's misidentified his own position. Look at his policies and you'll find nothing whatsoever about common ownership of the means of production. Rather he's interested in a Nordic welfare model—which combines market capitalism with a welfare state. The United States already does this (as does just about every Western democracy). It's just that Nordic states have a much broader welfare state (e.g. totally subsidized education, healthcare, etc.).

Clinton: She was Clinton. The one thing that bugged me is that on at least two occasions she basically said "vote for me, I'll be the first woman president". She also made some bizarre reference to republicans generally being against big government except when the want big government to attack a woman's right to health care (planned parenthood). In fact what republicans want is big government out of that issue...they simply want the big government to quit funding planned parenthood.

Sanders: I actually agree with his premise on higher education. The idea that when America said everyone deserves a high school education America was saying everyone deserves enough education to make a go at life. I think, for the most part, you need an associates degree these days.

Webb: Just seemed really stiff and much to conservative to appeal to democrats. I can't see him going to far in this.

Chafee: Interestingly...this guy was a republican until 2007. A liberal one, but a republican none the less. He looks goofy.

O"Malley: I didn't pay too much attention to the debate and am not real familiar with the candidates so I could be wrong, but this guy kind of seems like a one trick pony..... Green Energy.